Cole v Pilowsky [2018] NSWLEC 1495

Cole v Pilowsky [2018] NSWLEC 1495

The Court cannot make orders as there is only one tree remaining and Part 2A of the Trees Act requires a group of two or more trees; furthermore, the application included a tree on the applicant's own land and the Court lacks jurisdiction over a party's own trees.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Dismissal at Mention for Consent Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['tree Disputes' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'jurisdiction Under Trees Act']
['property Law'] ['tree Disputes' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'jurisdiction Under Trees Act']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Dismissal at Mention for Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court has jurisdiction to make orders regarding trees under Part 2A of the Trees Act' 'Whether consent orders could be made for pruning of trees' 'Whether a costs order could be made']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court cannot make orders as there is only one tree remaining and Part 2A of the Trees Act requires a group of two or more trees; furthermore, the application included a tree on the applicant's own land and the Court lacks jurisdiction over a party's own trees.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']